Thursday, July 21, 2016
"I Don't Know" is a Terrible Answer
Here's the thing--it's pretty apparent that there is not one single way this person could have been more compliant or conveyed more clearly how completely not wanting to get shot he was.
Here's the second thing--the police issued an explanation that the shooting was actually directed at the disabled client of Charles Kinsey, who was carrying a threatening...toy truck. That's hardly more reassuring--taking aim at an equally innocent person and missing, causing bodily harm to another person, is just incompetent. And if this shooting was just a terrible accident, why would Charles Kinsey be handcuffed and left to bleed before getting first aid?
And yet there's people out there looking for any narrative that makes this look less damaging for the police, "to be fair" or some such nonsense. Is it that impossible to suppose that there are LE who think their guns are the only and best tools at their disposal, even when they are not necessary at all? Is it that impossible to suppose that instead of admitting this situation was screwed up, the cops tried to sprinkle a little doubt around by treating a shooting victim as a perpetrator?
What a messed-up situation--but one that reveals that despite some of the nonsense people try to pass around: "Just comply with the cops and don't be a thug", that won't always help. It's up to departments to get people to look at their weapon as one of several tools, to de-escalate tense situations, and use better judgment. And to be accountable when there's a fuck up.